On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:00 AM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> The comment here makes no sense (unix, not windows). But the patch itself
> seems reasonable. There is a performance hit, but nothing compared to the
> call into stat/lstat. Other's opinions?

Seems risky from regression POV. Safer to map errno of ENAMETOOLONG
to the APR_ENAMETOOLONG, in case APR_NAMEMAX is lower than actual
limit at runtime.
Not sure about httpd patch though, IIUC it only helps a faulty config
or module (dirwalk happening for long URI that won't actually be
served off disk)